Dick Fischer deserves a hearing

From: RDehaan237@aol.com
Date: Sun Dec 30 2001 - 08:06:42 EST

  • Next message: george murphy: "Re: Dick Fischer deserves a hearing"

    n a message dated 12/27/01 10:16:35 AM, dickfischer@earthlink.net writes:

    << http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/PSCF12-93Fisher.html#Part%201

    http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/PSCF3-94Fisher.html#Part%202 >>


    Dick has offered two articles in the websites above that present the heart
    of his position, i.e., that Adam was a real, historical figure and was
    introduced into an already populated world.

    Neither George Murphy nor Paul Seely, as far as I know, have dealt with his
    research as such. Rather, in the recent exchange they marshaled theological
    arguments why they think Dick is wrong.

    George wrote: <<I think Dick's approach is a valiant attempt at a concordist
    interpretation of early Genesis, but I also consider such
    interpretations in general to be futile & unnecessary. Adam & Eve are
    theological figures who represent the first human beings, as part of the
    fact that in a broader sense they represent all humans. >>

    This is a criticism of Dick's motivation and a theological statement that,
    however, does not address Dick's evidence on which he bases his

    Paul wrote: <<When the individual [Adam] appears in v. 3, he is so merged
    with the universal Adam of Gen 1, that it is impossible to disentangle him
    and make him less than the father of all mankind.>>

    Again, more theological arguments.

    All Dick is asking, as I understand him, is for his historical and
    anthropological research to be addressed in its own right. I agree with him.
     His two articles are available on the website given above. Why doesn't
    someone evaluate them in terms of the data and conclusions he presents rather
    than whether his research agrees with one's favored theological theories?


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 30 2001 - 08:08:19 EST